From the ancient Greek for equality in freedom of speech; an eclectic mix of thoughts, large and small

New Shade of Green

Monday, January 7th, 2013

Back in 2001, Mark Lynas threw a pie in the face of Bjorn Lomborg (The Skeptical Environmentalist), yelling “pies for lies!”

Now Lynas recants and casts his support behind genetically modified crops:

When I first heard about Monsanto’s GM soya I knew exactly what I thought. Here was a big American corporation with a nasty track record, putting something new and experimental into our food without telling us. Mixing genes between species seemed to be about as unnatural as you can get — here was humankind acquiring too much technological power; something was bound to go horribly wrong. These genes would spread like some kind of living pollution. It was the stuff of nightmares.

These fears spread like wildfire, and within a few years GM was essentially banned in Europe, and our worries were exported by NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to Africa, India and the rest of Asia, where GM is still banned today. This was the most successful campaign I have ever been involved with.

This was also explicitly an anti-science movement. We employed a lot of imagery about scientists in their labs cackling demonically as they tinkered with the very building blocks of life. Hence the Frankenstein food tag — this absolutely was about deep-seated fears of scientific powers being used secretly for unnatural ends. What we didn’t realize at the time was that the real Frankenstein’s monster was not GM technology, but our reaction against it.

For me this anti-science environmentalism became increasingly inconsistent with my pro-science environmentalism with regard to climate change. I published my first book on global warming in 2004, and I was determined to make it scientifically credible rather than just a collection of anecdotes.

So I had to back up the story of my trip to Alaska with satellite data on sea ice, and I had to justify my pictures of disappearing glaciers in the Andes with long-term records of mass balance of mountain glaciers. That meant I had to learn how to read scientific papers, understand basic statistics and become literate in very different fields from oceanography to paleoclimate, none of which my degree in politics and modern history helped me with a great deal.

I found myself arguing constantly with people who I considered to be incorrigibly anti-science, because they wouldn’t listen to the climatologists and denied the scientific reality of climate change. So I lectured them about the value of peer-review, about the importance of scientific consensus and how the only facts that mattered were the ones published in the most distinguished scholarly journals.

My second climate book, Six Degrees, was so sciency that it even won the Royal Society science books prize, and climate scientists I had become friendly with would joke that I knew more about the subject than them. And yet, incredibly, at this time in 2008 I was still penning screeds in the Guardian attacking the science of GM — even though I had done no academic research on the topic, and had a pretty limited personal understanding. I don’t think I’d ever read a peer-reviewed paper on biotechnology or plant science even at this late stage.

Obviously this contradiction was untenable. What really threw me were some of the comments underneath my final anti-GM Guardian article. In particular one critic said to me: so you’re opposed to GM on the basis that it is marketed by big corporations. Are you also opposed to the wheel because because it is marketed by the big auto companies?

So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths.

I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.

I’d assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.

I’d assumed that Terminator Technology was robbing farmers of the right to save seed. It turned out that hybrids did that long ago, and that Terminator never happened.

I’d assumed that no one wanted GM. Actually what happened was that Bt cotton was pirated into India and roundup ready soya into Brazil because farmers were so eager to use them.

I’d assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for example; GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.

But what about mixing genes between unrelated species? The fish and the tomato? Turns out viruses do that all the time, as do plants and insects and even us — it’s called gene flow.

You have to love the NY Times‘ commenters:

There is a long tradition in the English speaking world of sudden middle age veers to the right. Lynas has plenty of company among tarnished intellectuals like Horowitz and Pound, and you see it every day in stolid and sold out administrators of green NGO’s.

Conventional wisdom has always been that they’ve decided “What the hell, I can’t make any difference, I’m going after the money”, but I suspect a different cause. The ability to perform hard intellectual tasks atrophies after about age 40, and those such as Lynas who were on the edge in the first place experience inner panic. This is expressed as a quiet rage, and they rediscover the ability to attract attention by flipping to “contrarian” but in reality quite conventional corporate perspectives.

Leave a Reply

Search

Search for:

Recent Comments

Alrenous: So children get more healthcare but don’t become healthier. You don’t say.

Scipio Americanus: I have it on the word of a very reliable source that the criteria for declassification of anything related to nuclear weapons have been massively and unreasonably tightened over the last few years. I’d venture a guess that it’s due to technically ignorant sensitivity to proliferation risk.

Senexada: Another incident of the null hypothesis is the Cherokee Land Lottery of 1832, a “natural experiment” which had nearly universal participation by white males, and in which the winners received a wealth shock equal to roughly the median wealth. The result: Sons of winners have no better adult outcomes (wealth, income, literacy) than the sons of non-winners, and winners’ grandchildren do not have higher literacy or school attendance than non-winners’ grandchildren. This suggests only a...

Grasspunk: These are the best photos the WSJ could come up with? These guys aren’t attractive enough to be hipsters.

Slovenian Guest: The Empire kicking rebel ass, hell yeah, git-r-done! It’s almost scary how right they got the ’80s look, feel & sound… as if the creators of the Galaxy Rangers went on and made a Star Wars cartoon. The current “official” Star Wars Rebels 3D CGI animated television series looks like an abomination in comparison.

Isegoria: The full report implies that “moderate-to-severe” crashes involve more than 1 g of acceleration: For this study, 1,691 moderate-to-severe crashes involving young drivers ages 16-19 were reviewed. Of these crashes, 727 were vehicle-to-vehicle crashes in which the force of the impact was 1.0g or greater, and 964 were single-vehicle crashes in which the vehicle’s tires left the roadway and impacted (with a force of 1.0g or greater) one or more natural or artificial objects. While the extent of any...

Isegoria: While cell phones don’t provide the majority of distractions, I think it’s fair to say that they introduce a new, large source of distractions. I agree that there’s a certain circularity, in that teens with bad judgment tend to compound their problems by introducing more distractions — but the teens in the videos certainly appeared typical. Also, the increase was in “moderate-to-sever e” crashes — which presumably excludes fender-benders.

Alrenous: It’s extremely important that cell phones are not even the majority of distractions, even though they consistently get top billing. The worst distraction is other people. Their statistics don’t add up properly, but something like two thirds of distractions statically associated with accidents are neither cellphones nor people. There’s also the ever-present racism causation problem. Does distraction cause poor driving or are poor drivers likely to let themselves get distracted?...